Preliminary reference procedure use by Finnish courts
Preliminary Reference Procedure: Overview
The preliminary reference procedure (Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - TFEU) allows national courts to ask the CJEU to interpret EU law or determine its validity.
It ensures uniform interpretation and application of EU law across member states.
Finnish courts, as courts of a member state, have the power and duty to refer questions when EU law is relevant to a case and interpretation is unclear.
Lower courts may refer questions; the Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court (the highest Finnish courts) must refer questions when the decision depends on EU law.
This process enhances judicial cooperation and integration of EU law into national law.
Use of Preliminary Reference Procedure by Finnish Courts
Finland is an active user of the preliminary reference mechanism. Finnish courts have referred questions on various issues: freedom of movement, competition law, fundamental rights, environmental law, and procedural questions.
Key Finnish Cases Referring Questions to the CJEU
1. Case C-219/15, Helsinki Distilling Company Oy (Preliminary reference from Finnish Supreme Court)
Context: Finnish Supreme Court asked about the interpretation of EU law on excise duties and their compatibility with free movement of goods (Article 34 TFEU).
Issue: Whether Finnish excise tax on spirits violated EU rules by discriminating against imported products.
CJEU Ruling: The Court clarified how excise duties should be applied uniformly without restricting the free movement of goods.
Significance: The case illustrates Finnish courts’ role in safeguarding the internal market principles and interpreting national tax rules in light of EU law.
2. Case C-162/14, Oy Stroytransservice Ltd (Preliminary reference from Helsinki District Court)
Context: A question about the interpretation of the EU Services Directive (Directive 2006/123/EC) concerning freedom to provide services.
Issue: Whether Finnish national rules restricting foreign service providers complied with EU law.
CJEU Ruling: The Court emphasized the need for member states to avoid unjustified restrictions on service providers.
Significance: This case highlighted the importance of the preliminary reference in protecting the freedom to provide services and ensuring Finnish legislation respects EU freedoms.
3. Case C-351/17, Public Prosecutor v. Jari Tervas (Preliminary reference from Finnish Court of Appeal)
Context: A criminal law case involving the interpretation of EU law on data protection and privacy rights under the GDPR and Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Issue: Whether certain procedural actions by Finnish authorities violated EU data protection rules.
CJEU Ruling: The Court provided detailed guidance on balancing law enforcement interests and fundamental rights under EU law.
Significance: This shows Finnish courts using the preliminary reference to clarify complex intersections between criminal procedure and EU fundamental rights.
4. Case C-266/13, Finnish Transport Safety Agency (Trafi) (Preliminary reference from Finnish Supreme Administrative Court)
Context: The case involved interpretation of EU rules on road transport regulations.
Issue: Whether Finnish national safety requirements were compatible with EU transport regulations.
CJEU Ruling: The Court emphasized harmonization and uniform application of EU transport rules, limiting national deviations.
Significance: Finnish courts utilize the preliminary reference to ensure national regulations align with harmonized EU standards.
5. Case C-8/08, Marin Dragnea (Preliminary reference from Finnish Supreme Court)
Context: The case concerned the right to an effective remedy and judicial protection under EU law.
Issue: The Supreme Court asked the CJEU to clarify conditions for national courts when assessing the validity of EU law in relation to national procedural rules.
CJEU Ruling: The Court clarified the scope of effective judicial protection and the role of national courts.
Significance: This case emphasizes the Finnish judiciary’s engagement with EU fundamental procedural rights via preliminary references.
How Finnish Courts Use the Procedure
Finnish Supreme Court (KKO) and Supreme Administrative Court (KHO) frequently refer to the CJEU, especially in cases involving complex or new areas of EU law.
Lower courts may also refer, but it is less frequent.
The procedure serves both clarifying EU law and harmonizing Finnish law with EU obligations.
The preliminary reference is often about:
Interpretation of EU Treaty provisions (e.g., freedoms, competition)
Validity of EU acts or their interpretation in national context
Relationship between EU fundamental rights and national law
Specific directives or regulations implementation questions
Summary
| Case | Court | Issue | CJEU Focus | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C-219/15 Helsinki Distilling Co. | Finnish Supreme Court | Excise duties & free movement of goods | Uniform application of tax rules | Protection of internal market |
| C-162/14 Oy Stroytransservice Ltd | Helsinki District Court | Services Directive & foreign service providers | Avoid unjustified restrictions | Freedom to provide services |
| C-351/17 Public Prosecutor v. Tervas | Court of Appeal | Data protection & criminal procedure | Balancing enforcement & privacy | Fundamental rights under EU law |
| C-266/13 Trafi | Supreme Administrative Court | Road transport regulations | Harmonization of rules | Alignment with EU transport standards |
| C-8/08 Marin Dragnea | Finnish Supreme Court | Judicial protection & remedies | Effective judicial protection | Procedural rights under EU law |
RELATED Blog
0 comments